SCA/5317/1984 of VISHWESHWAR MAHADEV & PANCHMUKHI HANUMANJI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 7 December 2000

1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? :

-------------------------------------------------------------- VISHWESHWAR MAHADEV & PANCHMUKHI HANUMANJI

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:

MR KV SHELAT for Petitioner (ABSENT) MR LR PUJARI, AGP, for Respondent No. 1, 2

-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI

and

MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH

Date of decision: 07/12/2000

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI)

The petitioner-trust challenges the notification dated 30.8.1983 (published on 29.9.1983) issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20(3) of the Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972, by the Government declaring the land mentioned therein in the Schedule as private forest with effect from the date of the issue of the notification.

2 The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act on the ground that they are violative of Article 31 of the Constitution. The acquisition made under the Act is assailed on the ground that it violates Articles 19 and (1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution. The provisions are also challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

3 The Gujarat Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1972, has been included at entry no.136 of the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution of India and therefore none of its provisions can be challenged on the ground of any inconsistency with any of the rights conferred by any provision of Part-III of the Constitution as provided in Article 31(B) thereof. Therefore, the challenge against the constitutionality of the said provisions is wholly misconceived and unwarranted.

4 As regards the challenge against the impugned notification we take note of the fact from the record that earlier the petitioner had challenged the same in Special Civil Application No.1620 of 1984 and by order dated 24.4.1984 of a Division Bench of this Court the petition was permitted to be withdrawn. A direction was given in that order that the petitioner will be given an opportunity of hearing by the State Government before the land in acquisition is declared to be a private forest, as required by Section 20(3) of the said Act and if the Government accepted the contention of the petitioner that the land in question cannot be declared to be a private forest, the impugned notification will be withdrawn. Thereafter by letter dated 9th July 1984 (copy of which is at Annexure-M to the petition) the Government after hearing the petitioner in person, as noted therein, and considering the documents on record as regards the acquisition of the land admeasuring 26.93 hectares under the said Act, decided to acquire the same. There is no valid ground made out for interfering with the said notification. The petition is therefore rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated.